lennavan:Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: Child support has NOTHING to do with abortion. Nothing at all. It's about supporting a child that has been born.

Couldn't agree more. Wait, you think I brought up child support in this abortion thread?

Philip Francis Queeg: If your argument is that abortion is murder

It isn't. Go back and read what I've been saying. Otherwise what's the point in posting back and forth?

So you agree that the decision of the mother in regards to abortion should have no bearing on child support. Glad we agree.

I mean, I wouldn't say that entirely. If she chooses to have the kid herself, she's on the hook. But otherwise sure. And hey, if the mother at 10 weeks can decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to life, the father should be able to decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to paternal financial support. Because I mean really, of the two, I think the kid would rather be alive and supported by one parent, don't you think?

I love that you're simultaneously arguing for a 10 week old fetus' potential right to child support from its father but not for its potential right to life. You're so close to being a pro-life, I don't know that I want to be the one to push you over the edge.

Philip Francis Queeg:So you agree that the decision of the mother in regards to abortion should have no bearing on child support. Glad we agree.

I mean, I wouldn't say that entirely. If she chooses to have the kid herself, she's on the hook. But otherwise sure. And hey, if the mother at 10 weeks can decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to life, the father should be able to decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to paternal financial support. Because I mean really, of the two, I think the kid would rather be alive and supported by one parent, don't you think?

I love that you're simultaneously arguing for a 10 week old fetus' potential right to child support from its father but not for its potential right to life. You're so close to being a pro-life, I don't know that I want to be the one to push you over the edge.

I have no actual reply, you're right and I cannot explain the logical inconsistency, so instead I'll just pretend like what you said is so stupid it's beyond a reply and hope you don't notice.

Philip Francis Queeg:So you think the US has an urgent need to have landmines sitting in warehouses that will never, ever be deployed? Seriously?

Did you see me say that? Seriously?

Philip Francis Queeg:Once they are deployed, they are never all retrieved. Some get left behind. There they remain a danger to the civilians who live and work in the region for decades.

Same with nukes. Same with most conventional ordnance.

Philip Francis Queeg:The point of having land mines is to deploy them. They serve no use, even as a deterrent un-deployed. If we have no intention of deploying them, there is no reason not to sign the trey

No that isn't the only point. Removing a type of weapon and you lose the skills to work with it, the knowledge to improve it, and it hurts your ability to defeat it.

Care to back that up with anything, or is that more of your made up BS?

We don't intend to launch MIRV's. should we sign a treaty banning them?

Theaetetus:Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Ill answer it for him. No he doesn't believe that. Additionally nothing he has said should lead you to believe that is what his thinks..

Theaetetus:EWreckedSean: you are trying so very hard to pretend I made a different point.

Really? Let's really get to the fundamentals:

Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Yes? No? Do you disagree with the above statement? Do you disagree that the above statement is what you've been proposing through this thread?

Yes, with the cavaet that we are talking about at the decision faze of when to have the child or not. Now let's really get down to fundamentals, where have I ever said:

"I believe a woman should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to her child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the father as the child's sole source of support."

Absolutely never. And you keep pretending I have. I said a woman can have an abortion, which eliminates all her financial obligation. Obviously if she has an abortion, there is nothing left for the father to support. I am pro-choice for both parents, you are only pro-choice for the woman.

I alone am best:Theaetetus: Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Ill answer it for him. No he doesn't believe that. Additionally nothing he has said should lead you to believe that is what his thinks..

Really? Because that seems to be the same as "I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it"

But okay, can you propose a modification of the statement? How about one you believe? What do you believe a man should be able to do? And specifics, please - not just "the same as the woman gets" since we clearly don't agree on what that is.What exactly should a man be able to do, and what position is the child left in as a result?

lennavan:Philip Francis Queeg: So you agree that the decision of the mother in regards to abortion should have no bearing on child support. Glad we agree.

I mean, I wouldn't say that entirely. If she chooses to have the kid herself, she's on the hook. But otherwise sure. And hey, if the mother at 10 weeks can decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to life, the father should be able to decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to paternal financial support. Because I mean really, of the two, I think the kid would rather be alive and supported by one parent, don't you think?

I love that you're simultaneously arguing for a 10 week old fetus' potential right to child support from its father but not for its potential right to life. You're so close to being a pro-life, I don't know that I want to be the one to push you over the edge.

I have no actual reply, you're right and I cannot explain the logical inconsistency, so instead I'll just pretend like what you said is so stupid it's beyond a reply and hope you don't notice.

I alone am best:Theaetetus: Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Ill answer it for him. No he doesn't believe that. Additionally nothing he has said should lead you to believe that is what his thinks..

Well I do agree wit that, if we are talking about at the decision faze of whether or not to keep the child. Not at any point in time.

EWreckedSean:I alone am best: Theaetetus: Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Ill answer it for him. No he doesn't believe that. Additionally nothing he has said should lead you to believe that is what his thinks..

Well I do agree wit that, if we are talking about at the decision faze of whether or not to keep the child. Not at any point in time.

EWreckedSean:Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: you are trying so very hard to pretend I made a different point.

Really? Let's really get to the fundamentals:

Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Yes? No? Do you disagree with the above statement? Do you disagree that the above statement is what you've been proposing through this thread?

Yes, with the cavaet that we are talking about at the decision faze of when to have the child or not. Now let's really get down to fundamentals, where have I ever said:

"I believe a woman should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to her child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the father as the child's sole source of support."

Absolutely never. And you keep pretending I have. I said a woman can have an abortion, which eliminates all her financial obligation. Obviously if she has an abortion, there is nothing left for the father to support.

So you're not saying that a man should be able to waive financial obligation?

Look, I'm trying to play nice here. I'm trying not to put words in your mouth. But all you're saying here is that a woman has different options.How about you put some words in your mouth then:"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

Theaetetus:EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: you are trying so very hard to pretend I made a different point.

Really? Let's really get to the fundamentals:

Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Yes? No? Do you disagree with the above statement? Do you disagree that the above statement is what you've been proposing through this thread?

Yes, with the cavaet that we are talking about at the decision faze of when to have the child or not. Now let's really get down to fundamentals, where have I ever said:

"I believe a woman should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to her child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the father as the child's sole source of support."

Absolutely never. And you keep pretending I have. I said a woman can have an abortion, which eliminates all her financial obligation. Obviously if she has an abortion, there is nothing left for the father to support.

So you're not saying that a man should be able to waive financial obligation?

Look, I'm trying to play nice here. I'm trying not to put words in your mouth. But all you're saying here is that a woman has different options.How about you put some words in your mouth then:"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

Fill in the blanks. Let's hear an affirmative statement.

1) I just farking said yes he should be able to opt out of financial responsibility at the time the decision is made to keep the child (i.e. carry it to term or not).

2) A woman has that same option through an abortion

That's my argument. It's easy for you to quote, because I actually typed it.

liam76:Philip Francis Queeg: So you think the US has an urgent need to have landmines sitting in warehouses that will never, ever be deployed? Seriously?

Did you see me say that? Seriously?

Philip Francis Queeg: Once they are deployed, they are never all retrieved. Some get left behind. There they remain a danger to the civilians who live and work in the region for decades.

Same with nukes. Same with most conventional ordnance.

Philip Francis Queeg: The point of having land mines is to deploy them. They serve no use, even as a deterrent un-deployed. If we have no intention of deploying them, there is no reason not to sign the trey

No that isn't the only point. Removing a type of weapon and you lose the skills to work with it, the knowledge to improve it, and it hurts your ability to defeat it.

Care to back that up with anything, or is that more of your made up BS?

We don't intend to launch MIRV's. should we sign a treaty banning them?

Why do we need skills to work with or improve a weapon we are never going to use?

Landmines have historically proven to pose a much more significant risk to civilians in the long term than other forms of unexploded ordinance. While unexploded shells are a surely a problem, mines due to their very nature remain a larger problem. They are explicitly designed to remain hidden in the ground and deadly.

I would absolutely support an anti-MIRV treaty if we had no intention of deploying such a weapons system. If we have no such system, we benefit from increasing the number of countries that also do not have such systems.

Theaetetus:I alone am best: Theaetetus: Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Ill answer it for him. No he doesn't believe that. Additionally nothing he has said should lead you to believe that is what his thinks..

Really? Because that seems to be the same as "I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it"

But okay, can you propose a modification of the statement? How about one you believe? What do you believe a man should be able to do? And specifics, please - not just "the same as the woman gets" since we clearly don't agree on what that is.What exactly should a man be able to do, and what position is the child left in as a result?

I will give some examples.

1. Man and Woman get freaky. Woman gets pregnant. Woman has to decide if she is going to get an abortion or keep it. At this point the man should be able to say, "If you are going to keep it, I don't want anything to do with it.". The woman still has the choice and the right to keep or abort the pregnancy however if she keeps it she knows she is making a unilateral decision and that the man has been removed from the process.

2. Man and Woman get freaky. Woman gets pregnant. Woman has to decide if she is going to get an abortion or keep it. The woman at this point can make a unilateral decision to keep it or not keep it, thus abrogating her financial responsibility in the process and indirectly removing the financial responsibility from the father.

3. Man and Woman get freaky. Woman gets pregnant. Woman cannot have an abortion for one reason or another, its not possible, she finds out to late blah blah blah. The child is born. The mother and father both have a financial responsibility.

So above we have 3 scenarios. 1 is the way I think it should be and pretty sure what the others are arguing for as well. 2 is the current setup and 3 is also the way it should be and currently is.

Philip Francis Queeg:You cannot simultaneous believe that child support has nothing to do with abortion

When you are discussing abortion, you are discussing a fetus that is the potential for life. It has zero rights. It will become a viable fetus, it will become life with associated rights. But while we discuss abortion, it has no rights, it is not a person.

Philip Francis Queeg:the decision by a woman not to abort should change the legal rights of the child to support.

She makes that decision the day she can no longer legally abort the fetus. The fetus went from having zero rights, it is the potential to life, to having full rights.

You're talking about two completely different situations and telling me I'm inconsistent. I'm telling you those two situations are completely different. In one situation you have a person, in the other you have a thing. And that difference kinda matters.

What you are projecting on to me, which is false, is that if at 10 weeks, a woman "decides" to have the fetus, I think it gets rights to financial support from her. I'm not saying that. At 10 weeks, she did not actually make that decision because she can always change her mind. She made that decision the moment she allowed the pregnancy to progress to a state where she can no longer get a legal abortion.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of this treaty (though I guess if I weren't lazy looking up the actual text on one of the UN archive sites wouldn't be difficult), but the problem with UN treaties in general from the US perspective is that they tend to demand a tightening of regulations that we've largely already enacted, and provide no particular incentives in terms of US interests. So they manage to be pointless in two respects: we're already taking the actions requested without a treaty, and there is no additional benefit to signing on.

A treaty is a contract, if there's no actual benefit to one side, why the hell would that side sign on, even if the obligations involved are largely actions he's already taking?

I alone am best:Theaetetus: I alone am best: Theaetetus: Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Ill answer it for him. No he doesn't believe that. Additionally nothing he has said should lead you to believe that is what his thinks..

Really? Because that seems to be the same as "I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it"

But okay, can you propose a modification of the statement? How about one you believe? What do you believe a man should be able to do? And specifics, please - not just "the same as the woman gets" since we clearly don't agree on what that is.What exactly should a man be able to do, and what position is the child left in as a result?

I will give some examples.

1. Man and Woman get freaky. Woman gets pregnant. Woman has to decide if she is going to get an abortion or keep it. At this point the man should be able to say, "If you are going to keep it, I don't want anything to do with it.". The woman still has the choice and the right to keep or abort the pregnancy however if she keeps it she knows she is making a unilateral decision and that the man has been removed from the process.

2. Man and Woman get freaky. Woman gets pregnant. Woman has to decide if she is going to get an abortion or keep it. The woman at this point can make a unilateral decision to keep it or not keep it, thus abrogating her financial responsibility in the process and indirectly removing the financial responsibility from the father.

3. Man and Woman get freaky. Woman gets pregnant. Woman cannot have an abortion for one reason or another, its not possible, she finds out to late blah blah blah. The child is born. The mother and father both have a financial responsibility.

So above we have 3 scenarios. 1 is the way I think it should be and pretty sure what the others are arguing for as well. 2 is the current setup and 3 is also the way it should be and currently is.

How is number one any different from: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."?

You've said you disagree with it, but didn't say how. You propose something that sounds exactly like it. So, let's clear it up: in what way do you disagree with that statement? Exactly how do you disagree?

lennavan:She makes that decision the day she can no longer legally abort the fetus. The fetus went from having zero rights, it is the potential to life, to having full rights.

And among those full rights is the right to financial support until the age of 18 from BOTH parents. That's whole farking point. The mother's decision to carry to term does not remove the full rights of the child.

man chooses to spill his sperm creating a pregnancy, he has chosen to be down for a child at that point.

So has the woman, lets outlaw abotion.

Her choice to do what she wants with her body extends later because the babby is formed in her body, like how you had the choice about what to do with your body previously when you decided to get freaky without birth control.

Theaetetus:How is number one any different from: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."?

Because it isnt a child. If it is a child then abortion is murder. You pick.

So, obviously we can have fun all day disagreeing on that point and we'll never get anywhere.

But that argument is completely contradictory to the argument that fathers should pay child support. If it's not a child until it's born, the only people who should be held responsible for that child is the mother since she's the one who unilaterally decided to make it exist. Otherwise you might as well pick any arbitrary man and force him to pay child support, not just the one who put sperm in the mother's vagina 9 months before she decided to have a kid.

man chooses to spill his sperm creating a pregnancy, he has chosen to be down for a child at that point.

So has the woman, lets outlaw abotion.

Her choice to do what she wants with her body extends later because the babby is formed in her body, like how you had the choice about what to do with your body previously when you decided to get freaky without birth control.

Abortion is a divisive issue with many moral underpinnings. If its as simple as you say, then lets just take responsibility into account. She can just not get pregnant. Problem solved.

I alone am best:Theaetetus: How is number one any different from: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."?

Because it isnt a child. If it is a child then abortion is murder. You pick.

she doesn't get to have the baby and then smother it, her choice ends slightly later than yours does.

I alone am best:Theaetetus: How is number one any different from: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."?

Because it isnt a child. If it is a child then abortion is murder. You pick.

So, you believe that a man should not have any financial obligation to a fetus, but once born, the man should have financial obligation to the child?

I'm really NOT trying to put words in your mouth, but you and EWrecked both repeatedly refuse to say what you actually believe. I also understand that both you and EWrecked are trying to pretend that this all just occurs at the time of the decision to continue the pregnancy or abort, but you're both ignoring what happens if the pregnancy continues and the child is born.

Please... one sentence, that's all I ask:"I believe a man should be able to _________, and once born, the child should get support from only __________"

Alternately, if you refuse to fill in those blanks, then please explain why you think the statement is unfair.

So, obviously we can have fun all day disagreeing on that point and we'll never get anywhere.

But that argument is completely contradictory to the argument that fathers should pay child support. If it's not a child until it's born, the only people who should be held responsible for that child is the mother since she's the one who unilaterally decided to make it exist.

So, then you agree with the statement:"I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Come on, this shouldn't be so hard... Day 1, couple has sex. Day 2, they find out she's pregnant. Day 3, he says "I refuse to pay for any child." Day 270, child is born. Does the child get support from the father? Has the child waived the obligation? Has a guardian ad litem waived the obligation? Is the mother the child's sole source of support?

man chooses to spill his sperm creating a pregnancy, he has chosen to be down for a child at that point.

So has the woman, lets outlaw abotion.

Her choice to do what she wants with her body extends later because the babby is formed in her body, like how you had the choice about what to do with your body previously when you decided to get freaky without birth control.

Abortion is a divisive issue with many moral underpinnings. If its as simple as you say, then lets just take responsibility into account. She can just not get pregnant. Problem solved.

The reasons for legalized abortion are that it is a safer alternative and results in less burdens on society IMO , it's not like legal abortion is some great thing and a moral victory for the left it's just better than the alternative.

Theaetetus:I alone am best: Theaetetus: How is number one any different from: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."?

Because it isnt a child. If it is a child then abortion is murder. You pick.

So, you believe that a man should not have any financial obligation to a fetus, but once born, the man should have financial obligation to the child?

I'm really NOT trying to put words in your mouth, but you and EWrecked both repeatedly refuse to say what you actually believe. I also understand that both you and EWrecked are trying to pretend that this all just occurs at the time of the decision to continue the pregnancy or abort, but you're both ignoring what happens if the pregnancy continues and the child is born.

Please... one sentence, that's all I ask:"I believe a man should be able to _________, and once born, the child should get support from only __________"

Alternately, if you refuse to fill in those blanks, then please explain why you think the statement is unfair.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or what? I will do it even though I have said it like 8 times.

"I believe a man should be able to should be able to waive parental rights within the time frame that the woman has an opportunity to have an abortion, and once born, the child should get support from only the mother if she decided to carry the child to term after the fact."

I really don't see what you guys are disagreeing about in the statement:"I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

It seems to be exactly what you've repeatedly proposed over and over. You all say you disagree with it, but refuse to say what about it you disagree with.

Come on... be honest. You really agree with it, don't you? You just realize that it puts you in a trap where you have to say that a child has no rights.

Theaetetus:EWreckedSean: How about you put some words in your mouth then:"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

Fill in the blanks. Let's hear an affirmative statement.

1) I just farking said yes he should be able to opt out of financial responsibility at the time the decision is made to keep the child (i.e. carry it to term or not).

2) A woman has that same option through an abortion

That's my argument. It's easy for you to quote, because I actually typed it.

So filling in the blanks is too tough for you? Allow me:"I believe a man should be able to opt out of financial responsibility, and the child should get support from only the mother"

Right? Yes or no... It's a very simple question.

If no, then you do it:"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

You are cherry picking my statement to remove a very essential part of it, which is AT THE TIME THE DECISION IS MADE TO KEEP THE CHILD OR NOT. I have agreed repeatedly with the full statement, I am not suggesting at any point the father should be able to opt out.

Philip Francis Queeg:lennavan: She makes that decision the day she can no longer legally abort the fetus. The fetus went from having zero rights, it is the potential to life, to having full rights.

And among those full rights is the right to financial support until the age of 18 from BOTH parents. That's whole farking point. The mother's decision to carry to term does not remove the full rights of the child.

And I'm saying, if during the period a mother can choose to prevent that child from ever having a right to life and child support and so on thus severing all legal ties to it, a father should be allowed to sever those legal ties as well. That moment a mother decides to carry a child to term, against the will of the father, is the very moment she decided to raise it herself. The child never got the right to financial support from both parents and therefore no right is being "removed."

And let's not be so silly as to suggest this idea is unprecedented. You can give birth, give it to the hospital and walk out the door, terminating all of your rights to the child and never once financially support it. So it's fully legal and possible and presumably acceptable for the child to have support from ZERO parents.

Theaetetus:I really don't see what you guys are disagreeing about in the statement:"I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

It seems to be exactly what you've repeatedly proposed over and over. You all say you disagree with it, but refuse to say what about it you disagree with.

Come on... be honest. You really agree with it, don't you? You just realize that it puts you in a trap where you have to say that a child has no rights.

No, because it isnt a child and words have meanings and stuff.

It makes its like saying.You are for killing children. If you are pro choice.

Theaetetus:I really don't see what you guys are disagreeing about in the statement:"I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Wait, you believe that? Because I sure as fark don't.

Theaetetus:It seems to be exactly what you've repeatedly proposed over and over.

By all means, quote one single person who ever said that. 342 posts in the thread, it has happened "repeatedly ... over and over." Quote someone.

I alone am best:Are you being deliberately obtuse, or what? I will do it even though I have said it like 8 times.

"I believe a man should be able to should be able to waive parental rights within the time frame that the woman has an opportunity to have an abortion, and once born, the child should get support from only the mother if she decided to carry the child to term after the fact."

Thank you!

So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.

But, it's pretty clear that you're not arguing that men should be able to do something that women can currently do: at no point can a woman waive parental rights and obligations within any time frame, such that once born, the child gets support only from the father.

Theaetetus:I really don't see what you guys are disagreeing about in the statement:"I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

It seems to be exactly what you've repeatedly proposed over and over. You all say you disagree with it, but refuse to say what about it you disagree with.

Come on... be honest. You really agree with it, don't you? You just realize that it puts you in a trap where you have to say that a child has no rights.

Because you are cherry picking out the time frame we are suggesting a man can make that decision, which is incredibly important to the point. And even though we keep adding it back in, you keep pretending we aren't for some reason.

EWreckedSean:Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: How about you put some words in your mouth then:"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

Fill in the blanks. Let's hear an affirmative statement.

1) I just farking said yes he should be able to opt out of financial responsibility at the time the decision is made to keep the child (i.e. carry it to term or not).

2) A woman has that same option through an abortion

That's my argument. It's easy for you to quote, because I actually typed it.

So filling in the blanks is too tough for you? Allow me:"I believe a man should be able to opt out of financial responsibility, and the child should get support from only the mother"

Right? Yes or no... It's a very simple question.

If no, then you do it:"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

You are cherry picking my statement to remove a very essential part of it,

Nope. Over and over, I'm asking you to MAKE a statement. Bit difficult to cherry pick when I'm asking you to make a statement, no?

which is AT THE TIME THE DECISION IS MADE TO KEEP THE CHILD OR NOT. I have agreed repeatedly with the full statement, I am not suggesting at any point the father should be able to opt out.

Nope, like I alone am best, you believe that a father should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, provided he waived that obligation early enough. The child (or a guardian ad litem, since the child didn't exist yet) didn't get to agree, or even get asked.In other words, you don't believe in constitutional rights of due process for the child.

lennavan:Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: She makes that decision the day she can no longer legally abort the fetus. The fetus went from having zero rights, it is the potential to life, to having full rights.

And among those full rights is the right to financial support until the age of 18 from BOTH parents. That's whole farking point. The mother's decision to carry to term does not remove the full rights of the child.

And I'm saying, if during the period a mother can choose to prevent that child from ever having a right to life and child support and so on thus severing all legal ties to it, a father should be allowed to sever those legal ties as well. That moment a mother decides to carry a child to term, against the will of the father, is the very moment she decided to raise it herself. The child never got the right to financial support from both parents and therefore no right is being "removed."

And let's not be so silly as to suggest this idea is unprecedented. You can give birth, give it to the hospital and walk out the door, terminating all of your rights to the child and never once financially support it. So it's fully legal and possible and presumably acceptable for the child to have support from ZERO parents.

So now you've moved the goalpost to saying that a child has no right to support from either parent. Holy Fark.

Theaetetus:serial_crusher: Theaetetus: 1) it's not a child before it's born.

So, obviously we can have fun all day disagreeing on that point and we'll never get anywhere.

But that argument is completely contradictory to the argument that fathers should pay child support. If it's not a child until it's born, the only people who should be held responsible for that child is the mother since she's the one who unilaterally decided to make it exist.

So, then you agree with the statement:"I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Come on, this shouldn't be so hard... Day 1, couple has sex. Day 2, they find out she's pregnant. Day 3, he says "I refuse to pay for any child." Day 270, child is born. Does the child get support from the father? Has the child waived the obligation? Has a guardian ad litem waived the obligation? Is the mother the child's sole source of support?

Well, yes and no. I think giving the man that right would make the law consistent, which is better than nothing. I think it's also reasonable to say that he has the right to walk away from his financial obligations only during the timeframe where she can legally get an abortion. i.e. he can't say, "oh yeah, let's have the kid, let's have the kid, I'll be a dad", then bail as soon as it's born, or in the third trimester or whatever. But if he says upfront that he doesn't want the kid, the mom's decision to keep it should also be a decision to support it without his help. Sucks for the kid, but that's life. If we were only concerned with what's best for the kid, we'd pick an arbitrary billionaire and make him pay some child support too.

Now, when it comes down to it, I don't think the man should have the right to walk away, just like I don't think the woman should have the right to an abortion. But that boils down to me thinking that it's a person from conception, so it's already too late for either parent to bail. So like I said, we can disagree all day there.

You haven't addressed the question I was asking though. If the baby only becomes a person when it's born, how do you decide that somebody who wasn't involved in the decision to give birth responsible for it?